Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume : La notion de sacre est difficile a definir. Pourtant, depuis le debut du XX e siecle, elle est a la base de la definition de la religion, et ce meme si le sacre excede la sphere religieuse, comme le prouve l’existence d’une sacralite laique, de nos jours. Nous cherchons a connaitre ici le contenu semantique de cette notion. Nous avons mene notre recherche chez des auteurs qui ont contribue a developper la notion de sacre au debut du siecle dernier. Nous avons mis a jour cinq elements pour definir le sacre. En expliquant chacun d'eux, nous en profitons pour reflechir sur les rapports entre le sacre et la communication. Mots-cles : sacre, religion, communication, transgression, interdit Abstract: The notion of sacred is difficult to define. Nevertheless, since at least one hundred years, it appears to be the base of the definition of religion. In this text, we try to know the semantic contents of this notion. We led our exploration in the theories of the authors which contributed to develop the notion of sacred at the beginning of the XXth century. We updated five elements to define the sacred. By explaining each of them, we bring our thought on the relations between the sacred and the communication. Keywords: sacred, religion, communication, transgression, inhibition
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".